Article #9

Article #9

“Differentiated Instruction, Professional Development and Teacher Efficacy”

Dixon, F, Yssel, N, McConnell, J, & Hardin, T

According to Dixon, F, Yssel, N, McConnell, J, & Hardin, T. (2014), authors of Differentiated Instruction, Professional Development and Teacher Efficacy, "differentiation makes sense because it offers different paths to understanding content, process, and products, considering what is appropriate given a child's strengths, interests, and style" (pg. 111). 

Dixon et al. (2014), begin their article with an overview of the education system and how it has changed and renewed over the years. For instance, examples that have altered classroom setting consists of Common Core State Standards, tall expectations and responsibility for all students, standards-based schoolrooms, multicultural diversity, acknowledgment of a number of intellects varied and educational approaches, along with swift societal and technological alterations (pg. 112). Overtime educators have realized that “what works for some students will not work for other students” (pg. 112).

After introducing the article, Dixon et al. (2014), discuss their review of recent literature about differentiating instruction and how it connects to teacher education programs, professional development as well as teacher efficacy.

Dixon et al. (2014), start by looking at material focusing on differentiating instruction in mixed-ability classes (pg. 112).  From their literature review, Dixon et al. (2014), explain that to differentiate instruction teachers must identify students’ differing “background knowledge, readiness, language, and preferences in learning and interests” (pg. 113). Next, the authors explain that teachers need to utilize their understanding of students to plan “content dimensions, process dimensions, and product dimensions” (pg. 113).

In addition, the authors state that in order for teachers to effectively teach a mixed ability classroom, teachers need to modify their instruction for students of differing skills in the same course with the commitment to enhance every student’s development and personal achievement by working with every student to find their strengths and weaknesses and helping them throughout the various educational stages (pg. 113).

Dixon et al. (2014) maintain that differentiation is a philosophy or an approach of thinking about instructing and educating instead of just an individual teaching technique (pg. 113). Dixon et al. (2014) believe differentiation should be focused on the student and should be meant to “serve levels of understanding within each concept taught” (pg. 113). Dixon et al. (2014), explain that the main objective of differentiation is guaranteeing that teachers center on processes and procedures that offer successful learning for a diverse group of individuals (pg. 114).

Once Dixon et al. (2014), discuss differentiating instruction in mixed-ability classes the authors then move to discussing their literature review of professional development in differentiation (pg. 114). From their literature reviews, Dixon et al. (2014), explain that in order for teachers to become adequate at differentiation, schools need to provide professional development opportunities for their educators (pg. 114). Dixon et al. (2014), state that instructors need to be on the same page regarding differentiation and teachers need to practice differentiation techniques on a frequent basis (pg. 114).

Dixon et al. (2014), maintain that professional development needs to introduce teachers to differentiation and also permit instructors to work on differentiation techniques in a workshop atmosphere where the instructional trainers can help teachers compose and reflect on their individual lessons, and also convince teachers of future accomplishments in the classroom (pg. 114). Dixon et al. (2014), believe that permitting instructors to observe other teachers differentiate plans, offering comments to one another once the observation is complete, and allotting time for teachers to work together on collective plans offer strengthening for actually teaching what teachers have learned about differentiation (pg. 115).

After talking about professional development in differentiation, Dixon et al. (2014), highlight the importance of teacher efficacy based on their literature review (pg. 115). According to Dixon et al. (2014), “teacher self-efficacy is defined as beliefs that are related to the effort teachers invest in teaching, the goals they set, their persistence when things do not go smoothly, and their resilience in the face of setbacks” (pg. 115). Dealing with teaching concerns and having the ability to not be overwhelmed by uncertainties are essential assets for every teacher to possess (pg. 116). Dixon et al. (2014) maintain that realizing ways to instruct to various skill levels is a difficulty instructors can surpass, particularly if teachers have a strong belief in their individual talents along with their teaching skills (pg. 116).

After discussing differentiating instruction, professional development and teacher efficacy, Dixon et al. (2014), explain that the purpose of their study is to explore the connection among “differentiated instruction and teacher efficacy and sense of self-efficacy beliefs” (pg. 116). After explaining the purpose of their study, the authors present two research questions. Research question one asks, “Do teachers who express higher teacher efficacy differentiate instruction more in their classrooms than teachers who feel less efficacious?” (pg.117). After posing this research question Dixon et al. (2014), hypothesized that “greater teacher efficacy and sense of self-efficacy beliefs would be associated with greater levels of differentiating instruction in their classrooms” (pg. 117). Research question two asks, “Does professional development in differentiation relate to teacher efficacy? (pg. 117). After asking this research question Dixon et al. (2014), hypothesized that “greater professional development in differentiation would be associated with greater levels of teacher efficacy and sense of self-efficacy beliefs” (pg. 117).

Once Dixon et al. (2014), explain their research questions and hypotheses, the authors move to the methods section. During the methods section, the authors explain that four schools from two districts took part in this study. District one is set in a high socioeconomic status setting made up of white collared workers. District two is positioned in an industrial city made up of blue collared workers (pg. 117). The researchers visited each school two times. During the initial visit to the schools, the researchers asked every school educator to complete a demographic questionnaire along with an instructional strategy questionnaire and a teacher efficacy questionnaire (pg. 117). During the second school visit, educators were asked to reply to a ten item questionnaire that centered on differentiation in education (pg. 117).

While at the schools, Dixon et al. (2014), asked 45 school teachers to take part in their research. Of the 45 teachers asked to participate, 41 teachers agreed to participate. Of the 45 participants, 34 teachers were female and 7 teachers were male. In addition, of the 41 teachers, 18 teachers taught in the elementary setting, 13 teachers taught in the middle school setting and 10 teachers taught in the high school setting. All but two teachers taught core classes.

After Dixon et al. (2014) explained their participants, they then move on to explaining the research instruments they used to conduct the study. The first questionnaire focused on questions asking participants about their instructional strategies (pg. 118). The second questionnaire focused on questions regarding efficacy and teaching efficacy (pg. 118).  Both questionnaires used a Likert-type reply approach and allowed participants to choose from a number of choices. The response choices ranged from “none at all to a great deal for each item” for the first questionnaire to “strongly agree to strongly disagree” for the second questionnaire (pg. 118). During the second school visit, participants replied to a 10-question questionnaire that centered on differentiation in instruction (pg. 119).

Dixon et al. (2014) explained that they used a number of methods to analyze the results. For instance, to answer their research questions, the authors conducted a predictive discriminant analysis with the TSES and TES scales. To analyze personal efficacy and teaching efficacy, student engagement, classroom management, and instructional strategy, the authors used a predictive discriminant analysis. The authors also explained that they utilized a simple linear regression with TSES when predicting differentiation (pg. 120). In addition, the authors explained that they utilized a stepwise multiple regression to analyze personal efficacy, teaching efficacy, student engagement, classroom management, and instructional strategy to predict differentiation (pg. 120).

Once Dixon et al. (2014) discussed how they analyzed the data, the authors then focused on the results of the study. From the results, Dixon et al. (2014) explained the following. Regarding professional development, the outcomes illustrated that more “professional development in differentiation was positively associated with both teacher sense of efficacy beliefs and teacher efficacy” (pg. 121). In addition, the results showed that more “professional development in differentiation was positively associated with both Personal and Teaching Efficacy” (pg. 121).

Regarding efficacy, the data illustrated that “both teacher sense of efficacy beliefs and teacher efficacy were positively associated with differentiation” (pg. 121). In addition, the results showed that only “Personal Efficacy significantly predicted differentiation” (pg. 122). Regarding instructional strategy, the data illustrated that “only Instructional Strategy significantly predicted differentiation” (pg. 122).

After explaining the results, Dixon et al. (2014), then moved to the discussion section of the paper. During the discussion, the authors suggested that based on their findings, teacher education programs ought to deliver training highlights the philosophy about differentiation along with the progression of differentiated instruction so that new instructors can go into teaching prepared to account for a variety of learners (pg. 122). In addition, the authors explain that professional development is just as significant to effective differentiation since professional development gives insight into how to differentiation and why differentiation is essential in 21^st century classrooms (pg. 122).

Dixon et al. (2014) explained that they found that “teachers who had more professional development in differentiation, regardless of school, felt more efficacious in differentiating instruction in their classes”(pg. 123). From their study, the researchers also found that extra professional development time forecast added efficacy (pg. 123).

The authors explained that their “data revealed that grade level and discipline taught did not matter in how efficacious a teacher felt in implementing differentiation, but professional development did” (pg. 123). As a result, teachers who had extra training in differentiation had extra efficacy beliefs that they could really incorporate these strategies in their classrooms. Dixon et al. (2014) also explained that their data illustrated that “both sense of efficacy beliefs and teacher efficacy were associated with differentiation” (pg. 123).

During the discussion section, Dixon et al. (2014), also highlighted the answers to their research questions and hypotheses and explained that their research established their “beliefs that differentiation is associated with greater efficacy beliefs” (pg. 125). In addition, the research illustrated that their “belief that more professional development in differentiation is associated with greater levels of teacher efficacy and sense of efficacy beliefs” (pg. 125).

After discussing the study and results, Dixon et al. (2014), then provided the limitations of the research. One limitation of the research was that their sample size only came from four schools in two different school districts. The authors explained that another limitation of the study was that data were self-reported and they had to trust data was reported "truthfully and adequately" (pg. 125). An additional limitation of the research the authors highlighted was that "there were no data that actually indicate the precise formula for what works best in increasing teacher behaviors according to professional development” (pg. 125). In addition to explaining the research limitations, the authors also explained that additional research is essential to build upon what is known about differentiated instruction (pg. 125).

Once Dixon et al. (2014) provided the research limitations, the authors then moved to the conclusion. During the conclusion, Dixon et al. (2014) state that “when teachers are efficacious in their beliefs about their ability to teach students effectively, they are more likely to differentiate” (pg. 125). In addition, Dixon et al. (2014) specified that differentiation is a reasonable and useful method to meet students’ educational requirements in a diverse educational setting, and that differentiation is supportive in helping educators meet their educational goals (pg. 125). Dixon et al. (2014) end their article by saying that they believe their study illustrates that “teacher efficacy and professional development were important to teachers in the process of differentiating instruction” (pg. 125).

Reflection

After reading and analyzing this article by Dixon et al. (2014), I was very impressed by how organized the article was constructed. The authors did a great job at providing a number of headings and sub headings to highlight important parts of the research. For instance, the authors separated the article into sections that contained the literature reviews, the methods, the results, the discussion, the limitation and the conclusion. Each of these sections was also divided into smaller sub sections as well.

In addition to doing a great job at organizing the article, Dixon also did a great job of clearly identifying their two research questions along with providing hypotheses to each question. I also think the authors did a great job at referring back to their research questions during the discussion section of the article. Out of all of the articles I have reviewed the past year, I believe this is the only article that clearly stated if their hypotheses were correct.

One area I would think the authors could have enhanced was the analysis section. Dixon et al. (2014), did a nice job at providing a detailed analysis section, however, this section contained a number of research acronyms and information that was difficult to understand.

Finally, I liked that Dixon et al. (2014), focused not only on differentiated instruction, but also on professional development and teacher efficacy. By focusing on these three areas, the authors were able to make a correlation that I have not come across during previous literature reviews on differentiated instruction.

Reference

Dixon, F, Yssel, N, McConnell, J, & Hardin, T. (2014). Differentiated Instruction, Professional Development and Teacher Efficacy. Journal for the Education of the Gifted. 37(2). pg. 111-127. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0162353214529042

Word Cloud created using key words from this article: